We’ve been traveling on business all week and naturally the conversation was all aviation. We spoke with lessors, aerospace analysts, hedge funds and private equity. In what amounts to a data dump, here is what is being discussed “out there.” This is in no particular order.
Unrelated to Airbus and Boeing, our colleague Addison Schonland has this first-hand account of Isreal’s Iron Dome.
Posted on November 30, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
Boeing outsourcing: In an election where outsourcing is a major political campaign issue, The Seattle Times reports Boeing wants to outsource more work to Mexico. Here is Boeing’s letter, via The Times.
MAX v NEO: Here is an excellent set of tables updating the orders between the 737 MAX and the A320 NEO. According to the analysis, Airbus right now has a 63% market share for the airframe. On the NEO, where two engines are offered, CFM has a 41% share vs PW’s 39% share with the remainder undecided.
Posted on October 26, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
ISTAT Europe: Aeroturbopower has this recap of last week’s ISTAT Europe conference and he takes a devastating hit at the Boeing presentation. We weren’t at the event this year but we’ve seen plenty of Boeing presentations and agree with Aeroturbopower’s assessment that Boeing takes liberties…something we’ve written about and something we’ve also expressed to Boeing directly. Comparing apples to oranges seems to be a common tactic.
But in fairness, Airbus also selectively chooses numbers that boost its case. We dissected one such instance in this column on AirInsight. Both companies play around with the seating configuration of their airplanes and the opposition to come up with numbers for seat-mile costs. We’ve seen Boeing compare ranges of the 737 NG and MAX vs the A320ceo/neo families by including the auxiliary fuel tank for the 737 but not for the A320, completely distorting the comparisons. Boeing relies on DOT Form 41 data and a study from 2006-2009 in Europe when comparing maintenance costs of the two families to argue the 737 costs up to 27% less to maintain. The figure, on its face, defies logic. If the A320 cost this much more to maintain, airlines would be hard-pressed to buy it. But more to the point, the methodology for the DOT Form 41 data is thoroughly discredited as a reliable source of information. Relying on a study that uses data up to six years old is also questionable.
All these manipulations of data is why we view numbers from both companies with a high degree of skepticism. In this column, we discuss this at the very end.
Manipulation of data like this harms the credibility of both companies.
As for Aeroturbopower’s report on the 737 MAX design not being frozen, this is true and it’s not news. Boeing said it won’t be until next year and this is what we are also hearing from customers. We’re hearing from a variety of sources that there are still challenges in achieving the advertised 13% fuel burn improvement over today’s 737 NG. We believe Boeing and CFM will get there, but it remains tough. We would not be surprised to see the 69.4 inch fan diameter increase yet again.
WTO Compliance?
The Washington Post reports that the US has complied with the WTO ruling on Boeing illegal subsidies. Boeing didn’t announce whether it has repaid the illegal subsidies, as it pledged to do if it was found guilty of receiving them.
Bloomberg News has this report that the Air France-KLM talks for 25 Airbus A350s remain stalled over the long-running dispute between the company and Rolls-Royce over AF’s desire to overhaul the Trent XWB engines.
The Air France-KLM group offers its own maintenance, repair and overhaul services and wants the ability to provide MRO to others as well as perform the work itself.
Engine suppliers are loath to grant MRO rights to others. Engines are often sold at deep discounts, and in extreme cases, even given to airlines in exchange for the exclusive parts and MRO contracts. This is where the engine makers truly make their profits.
Rolls-Royce is known to be particularly hard-nosed in this regard.
So how will the log-jam be broken?
Rolls wants Air France to order the Trent 1000 for the 25 Boeing 787 orders announced last year. Given the long relationship between Air France and GE, the supplier on AF’s current fleet of a variety of aircraft, this will be a tough pill to swallow. But don’t count it out.
Posted on September 18, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
Boeing rolled out Ray Conner, the new CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, to analysts in New York yesterday. The first research note we’ve received, from Imperial Capital’s Ken Herbert, portrayed a positive meeting. Below is a synopsis. As we receive more notes, we’ll add those comments.
We don’t like the resumed policy of using cash to repurchase stock, instead of putting it into new airplane programs (something Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group, normally a pro-Boeing consultant, has roundly criticized for years).
Imperial Capital
We believe BA is benefitting from several tailwinds, and is demonstrating increased confidence regarding its 787 execution and the ability to take further costs out of the supply chain. However, we believe much of the good news is reflected in BA stock, and we see slowingorders in 2013 as limiting the multiple; therefore, we are maintaining our In-Line rating. Investors areexpecting a significant dividend increase or share repurchase program, which could be a positive catalyst, but we see the new program developments, which include the 737MAX, the 777X and 787-10, as potential competing cash pulls.
Regarding the 787, Boeing confirmed that Charleston is ahead of plan, but that it has been staffed to over deliver. Boeing also made a point of stressing that its movement down the cost curveon the 787 will be similar to that of the 777. We believe that there is an opportunity for Boeing toexceed expectations on the 787.
We continue to believe, however, the much of the execution upside is priced into Boeing stock. We believe that in order for the stock to see material upside, Boeing needs to demonstrate a very bold use of the expected free cash flow, in the form of both increased dividend and share repurchases, that will attract new investor interest and accelerate the EPS growth. However, this will limit the new product development options, considering the potentially competing development requirements of the 737MAX, the 787-10, and the 777X. We believe current BCA leadership wants to do both the 777X and the 787-10, and believes that there is significant pent-up order demand for both new aircraft, but we believe the focus on share repurchases and/or the dividend, reiterated at the 8/28/12 reception, could push some development effort to the right.
Separately:
Posted on August 30, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
737 MAX: Boeing Frontiers Magazine has a long article with lots of pictures describing the designing process of the Advanced Technology Winglets.
RR-PW on big engines: Aviation Week has this article speculating on the prospect of Rolls-Royce and Pratt & Whitney teaming to offer an engine for the Boeing 777X.
CFM says the use of advanced materials will reduce fuel consumption in the LEAP-1A (Airbus) engine by 1.5%, which happens to be the amount John Leahy of Airbus said that PW’s GTF has an advantage over LEAP.
Posted on July 16, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
Press conference
Jeff Smisek, CEO United
Jim McNerney, CEO The Boeing Co.
Boeing Photo.
Ray Conner, President Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Q&A:
Smisek:
Posted on July 12, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
Dominic Gates of The Seattle Times has this story in which he has the following observation:
Wyse revealed that Boeing, through structural efficiencies, has also beefed up the allowed maximum take-off weights for the three MAX variants.
Each is 5,000 to 7,000 lbs heavier than the maximum take-off weights of the current 737s.
That means each 737 MAX model, even though heavier than the corresponding current model of the 737NG, can either carry a heavier payload or carry more fuel and so fly farther.
This is good. But we’re hearing from airlines that runway performance may be worse than the 737NG. The airplane is heavier but the wing is the same and the engine thrust is still somewhat of a mystery. CFM International, maker of the LEAP-1B that will power the MAX, lists thrust on its website of 20,000-28,000 lbs without identifying the sub-types and thrust to which the engines will be applied.
These thrust ratings are similar to those now on the NG, rather than being increased to compensate for the increased weight.
One airline tells us that runway performance for the -8 MAX and -9 MAX is longer than the -800 and -900. (The airline is not considering the -7 MAX and doesn’t have the -700.) This, the airline tells us, makes the airplanes problematic at some airports it serves.
This illustrates the dilemma Boeing and CFM have with the physically-constrained 737. CFM could build any engine it wants that would get the job done. It has, after all, two LEAP engines in development for the COMAC C919 and the Airbus A320neo. But the 737 presents special challenges and CFM is constrained unless Boeing lifts the entire airplane with new main gear. But this would mean a new wing box and associated structural changes, adding significantly to the cost. And Boeing won’t to this.
There’s still a lot about MAX we don’t know. And many customers are also waiting for the information.
Posted on July 10, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
McNerney rejects “price war.” A quote from a Financial Times story (see below).
He rejected suggestions that a price war had broken out between Airbus and Boeing over the A320 Neo and 737 Max but confirmed the US manufacturer would woo some airline customers of its European rival.
Courtesy of Aspire Aviation, here is a summary of orders through Day 1:
Airbus
Date |
Customer |
Quantity |
Model |
Remarks |
9th July |
Arkia Israel Airlines |
4 |
A321neo |
Agreement |
Boeing
Date |
Customer |
Quantity |
Model |
Remarks |
9th July |
Air Lease Corp (ALC) |
60 |
737 MAX 8 |
Reconfirmation rights for 25 more |
9th July |
Air Lease Corp (ALC) |
15 |
737 MAX 9 |
|
Pratt & Whitney
Date |
Customer |
Quantity |
Model |
Remarks |
9th July |
IndiGo |
300 |
PW1100G-JM |
|
9th July |
CIT |
60 |
PW1100G-JM |
|
9th July |
Cebu Pacific |
60 |
PW1100G-JM |
For 30 firm A321neos |
9th July |
Norwegian Air Shuttle (NAS) |
100 |
PW1100G-JM |
MoU |
CFM
Date |
Customer |
Quantity |
Model |
Remarks |
9th July |
Air Lease Corp (ALC) |
150 |
CFM Leap-1B |
|
Embraer
Date |
Customer |
Quantity |
Model |
Remarks |
9th July |
Hebei Airlines |
5 |
E-190s |
Booked in Q2 backlog |
Reuters put together a handy-dandy thing to calculate airplane prices easily. These are list prices, of course.
Some stories of note:
United to announce big MAX order July 12
AirInsight is posting daily news and videos.
The Financial Times of London has a piece with Boeing’s Jim McNerney. (Free but limited registration required.) Here’s a relevant quote.
Boeing announced the 737 Max in August last year and Mr McNerney said that “in retrospect” the US manufacturer should have made its decision to proceed with a revamped version of its narrow-body workhorse, rather than a brand new aircraft, “six to nine months” earlier.
Posted on July 9, 2012 by Scott Hamilton
We’re all used to Airbus and Boeing engaging in hand-to-hand combat. The war has now spilled over to CFM and Pratt & Whitney and the LEAP engine vs the GTF.
There have always been some sharp words. But according to these two stories from Guy Norris at Aviation Week, the tone has now gotten even sharper.
CFM claims big advantage over GTF.
We’re puzzled by CFM’s claim (in the first story) that the LEAP will have a 2%-2.5% advantage in fuel burn over the GTF. Airbus gives a 1.5% advantage to GTF because of the larger fan (John Leahy, Credit Suisse conference Nov. 30, 2011). CFM claims a 15% SFC gain over today’s engines; PW claims 16% SFC gains (pre-installation) for its GTF and flying test results bear this out, PW says.
CFM has a larger market share of aircraft over 100 seats, because of its exclusivity on the 737 MAX. CFM also has a larger share of the A320neo family, the only airplane where there is head-to-head competition, bolstered by the policy of sister company, lessor GECAS, of buying only GE engines; and a financial rescue of Frontier Airlines, which has a CFM-powered A320 fleet and which ordered the A319neo/320neo at the Paris Air Show last year with LEAP engines.
It’s noteworthy in the first article that the LEAP-1B for the 737 MAX shares little commonality with the LEAP-1A and LEAP-1C. This reflects the challenges of fitting a LEAP under the wings of the physically-constrained 737, which basically required another core design.
Separately, here is a story about the materials and process used for the LEAP.
Posted on July 8, 2012 by Scott Hamilton